LAROUCHE WEBCAST:

Countdown to Obama's Removal

Lyndon LaRouche presented on Oct. 19, 2012 the third in a series of Friday evening webcasts, leading up to the Presidential election on Nov. 6. We publish here an edited transcript of his keynote address. The complete webcast is archived here.

What I shall do, given the circumstances, is not only to address what the problems are that confront the Presidency of the United States and the nation now, but give you a picture of when it began, how it happened, and how it developed, so that you understand not that we have problems—I think many of you, most of you, know we have serious problems.

We have, for example, 27 million people in the United States, who are of working age, who are desperately unemployed. They have no resources whatsoever. And this has been one of the products of what the policy has been of the United States, in its process of degeneration into this absolute low point of Obama running for re-election. This is the lowest point in all American history, the entire history of the United States; this is the very worst.

So, let's look at this, and just the highlights of the recent history, when the current problems really began. Of course they began with the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and that was the background of this whole story. Franklin Roosevelt died a worn-out man, with a war that had been protracted by Winston Churchill, for at least a year more than needed, and he died worn-out. And we had a Vice President who came in, who was qualified for vice, Harry Truman. And he made a real mess of this thing.

But we got rid of Truman, largely due to Dwight Eisenhower, who got us out of a fraudulent war, at the beginning of the 1950s, and we went on, under Eisenhower, to do a little bit better, but the problem was not essentially solved.

FDR to JFK

What happened then, we had a new President, a new President who was actually sponsored, and guided, in a certain way, by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of Franklin Roosevelt. This was Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And Kennedy, in close association with his brother in this enterprise, his brother Robert, carried us into a great surge of economic, political, and moral revival—based largely on what Eisenhower had done, and what MacArthur had done, and what people in Europe of the same nature had done.

So we went into a crisis at the time that the issue was two things: First of all, the British Empire was trying to consolidate its position as the ruling empire of the planet, and was gobbling us up, if it could. What happened is, that was stopped for a time, by Kennedy, by President Kennedy and his brother. They handled the crisis, the thermonuclear crisis, very well, and went on from that to make magnificent initiatives, including the organization of the space program, and a plan for machine-tool development to enhance the whole economy of the United States.

But then, Jack Kennedy was assassinated, and nobody wanted to know why, or who done it. It was just shut down. There was never an investigation of why and how Jack Kennedy was killed. But some of the issues involved were well known. Why would anyone want to kill Jack Kennedy? Well, some people wanted to have a war. They wanted a long war, in Indochina, and Jack said no. They wanted to cut out the machine-tool design work, and they said no to Jack—after he was dead. And they launched the war which really was about 10 years long, in Indochina, in Vietnam and in the adjoining area.

Then we had the assassination of Kennedy—we had many assassinations of key figures. The result was, Robert Kennedy was nominated to run for the Presidency to replace his brother. And he was assassinated on the eve of his being nominated for the position. And that [assassination] was covered up, also.

Then we went into a period where the economy began to spiral downward. We went into 1971. One of my great notable effects was, I was the one who had forecast, three years earlier, the 1971 depression—which was a depression. And I was the only one who did that, and I got into trouble for being a success on that one.

But what happened after that, for the entire period of the 1970s, was a disaster, an economic disaster, a disaster for the lifestyle and everything of our people. We were on the way down.

A Decision To Run for President

But in the middle of that decade, I ran for President. Why did I want to run for President?

Well, I certainly had a certain amount of backing for doing that at the time, but what was my reason for doing so? I was aware, and said, and campaigned for President, with television and the usual stuff, and warned exactly what the reason was for the problem. There was the intention to get the United States into a thermonuclear war.

So, therefore, I ran a Presidential campaign, not because I expected to win the Presidency—that certainly was way beyond possibility at that point—but in order to put before the people, before a national public, the election issue, the Presidential issue, which is, we must not get into a thermonuclear war.

Now, that had repercussions, both in Europe and in the United States. And people, as a result of that election and its issues, began to come around me, influential people, some very influential people. Leading military figures in Europe: in France, the Gaullists; in Germany, same kind of thing; from Italy, from Argentina, and other places. And what began to happen during that period, is, there was a buildup of what became known as the SDI.

The actual initiation of the SDI was by me; it was done by people who had been part of the OSS, who came to me and said, "Let's play." They came to leading people in Germany, leading people, especially the military, in France, places like that; then some of our scientific community, typified by these same kind of people. So, what happened is, up to 1983, I had been working on this issue. I had drawn in some leading figures of the Soviet Union into this operation. I had drawn other people around, and we began to build a plan for what became known as the SDI, and build it around Ronald Reagan. He was fully supporting of it, but we did it, and this meant people from the Soviet Union, who were participating. It meant people throughout our institutions. It meant support from the German military, German leaders—they were officially retired types, but they were leaders. French—the Gaullists. Leaders in Italy. And we had organized that.

So we decided, and we agreed, in 1983, that we were going to launch a Strategic Defense Initiative, because the continuing issue, all through this process, since Khrushchov's great bomb back in the 1950s, was that the capability of thermonuclear weapons had increased to the point that this was a real tangible danger of extinction of the human species.

And Reagan supported that. He was defeated on that issue. He went with the same issue in his second term and thereafter; he said, it's going to come, it has to come. Well, this was the thinking, really, which reflected people like Douglas MacArthur, who had been a key advisor for Jack Kennedy.

But then the opposition came in. Reagan was shut down essentially—not fully shut down, but what he intended to do in this direction was shut down. And from that point on, except for a tickle from Bill Clinton, there has been no initiative, no leadership, from the U.S. Presidency to avoid a thermonuclear war.

We are now at a point where the official estimate of leading people in Europe and elsewhere, is that the United States is now about to become involved in a worldwide thermonuclear war, in which the British, the United States under Obama—and Obama is very key in this thing—and others are moving toward a thermonuclear war. The credibility that it could happen now is great. It could happen in November, one day, and the thing is well known if you pay attention to what's going with our Joint Chiefs of Staff and people like that around the world.

One bright day, a fulmination in the Middle East, together with another 9/11 question—but a fulmination in the Middle East would start with a U.S. launch, or threatened launch of thermonuclear attack on Russia, China, India, and so forth. This would come chiefly from the United States, from the Ohio-class submarine fleet, but also from other kinds of capability. The British would be involved, officially. NATO would be involved, or a good deal of it. And all within about one hour and a half, the entirety of the planet would be engulfed in a thermonuclear war, which would be a virtual extermination of most of the population on the planet.

And the aftermath would be that. That is where we are now. That's exactly where we are. And if Obama were re-elected as President, that would happen, or probably happen, and everybody of any intelligence, serious political intelligence, in the world today, knows that we're on the edge of the launching of a thermonuclear war. In one and a half hours or less, two large surges, the degree of weaponry put into motion would actually cause a virtual extermination of humanity.

The planet would be transformed. And that little joke that Khrushchov ran, with his "mighty midget" back there in the 1950s, was nothing. It was just a warning of what's going to come. And the threat of an actual launching of thermonuclear war, was already on the table in the United States and some circles within the United States system, in the Presidency, back then in the 1970s, when I was concerned about it.

So, this is the real issue.

Why Thermonuclear War?

So, what does this war mean? Why thermonuclear war? Why go for, even threaten, the capability to go to thermonuclear war? Who would want to do that?

Well, you have a queen in England, for example. She's not the only problem, but the queen in England is the one that wants to reduce the human population. She has recently, in the last year or so, organized a mad movement, publicly, with great public furor, inside England itself, but elsewhere as well, for the reduction of the human population, from its presently estimated population of 7 billion persons living on this planet, to about the approximate rate of 1 billion.

In other words, what's intended is the greatest genocide every considered against the human species. And that is the policy of the Queen of England. And presumably the policy of her thug [Tony Blair], who operates now, I believe, in Chicago, advising Obama.

So, the point is, all other issues are forgotten. We've got two threats. One, if nothing like thermonuclear war actually happens, the threat is the greatest poverty you ever saw, the greatest rate of death. And the Green movement is actually the instrument of death. Because if we do not develop the productive forces of the total population of the planet, we are going to have death, as you have never seen it, or thought of it before.

If Obama is the President, elected again, it is probable that as early as November, or sometime after that, that Obama as President would launch thermonuclear war. Because he would override the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who warned against this, that it must not be done, and people throughout the world who know this cannot be allowed to happen. What's the argument?

Well, Obama was created by the British monarchy. Those are the people that backed it, got all the fraudulent funds, and all the things that enabled him to get elected. It was one of the greatest swindles, and the most dubious pieces of victory, ever conceived of, at least by a larger nation. And that's what he's here for.

The evidence is there. What happened to your health care, with Obama? He did exactly the first thing that Adolf Hitler did when he got into power: cut the health care. And his initial program was a carbon copy of what Hitler put into effect, in the first period of his administration; same thing.

What's the point? The British queen says—and she has a wide backing, with what are called the Greenies. Now the Greenies are not all the same thing, but they come yellow-green, blue-green, Nile green, all these kinds of green. But the ideology is, we must not have high technology, high energy-flux-density technology in this world. We must reduce the world's population from 7 billion people, down to 1, or thereabouts. That's her policy. That is the policy behind Obama. That is the policy that we're up against in various parts of the world. Europe is about to die, the whole system of Europe, the European system, the so-called euro system, is about to disintegrate. It's now in hyperinflation. Obama has now put the United States into an actual state of hyperinflation with his bailout system. All of these things are there.

However, if we take the appropriate actions, none of these things need to happen. There is a powerful movement, among major and other nations throughout the world, not to have thermonuclear war, not to allow it to happen, not to excuse it, not to tolerate it. There's an impulse around the world, to be able to feed the world. Our own people in the United States are not being fed. And, by the end of this year, the effect of the policies, in particular of the Obama Administration, will mean large-scale death from shortages of food and other things, inside the United States itself.

So all these issues come down to one thing: When you talk about a Presidency, and you talk about issues: "He's good because of this issue; he's bad because of that issue. This is stuff that's done all the time"—it's absolute nonsense.

Look: What happened? We have a policy in the United States, a bad policy, a bad food policy. We are not producing enough food to sustain the population of the United States. We have done nothing about the shortage of water in the Central Plains in the United States. Things of that sort. You are getting nothing but disaster from what this President Obama represents.

What Can We Do?

Now, I can say more on this, but let's come to a crucial point or conclusion of what this is all about. What do we do? Well, the answer is obviously, someone says, "Well, we have a Republican, don't we?" But a lot of people would say, "Look at the Republican slate." And, you know, the candidate is not so bad, but you've got some really tough birds out there in the Republican ranks, and something's got to be done about that.

Right now, Obama is not popular, despite all the boolah boolah about this, with the American population of voters. He's not really that popular. Many key Democrats are going to stay Democrats, but they're going to stay Democrats by not voting. And this is where a good part of the potential for a Republican victory is to come about. Many Democrats, in their conscience, are disgusted by the idea of voting for this Obama. And that's Obama's biggest problem. He counts all the Democrats, but fails to notice the number that ain't votin' for him.

So, therefore, as I said, the Republican Party is not a proposition that I would recommend.

But, suppose we have to choose between Obama and Romney? And we do have to get rid of Obama. Only stupid people or insane people or blinded people could ever vote for Obama. Or, they're blackmailed, or threatened, or something like that. No one honestly, knowing all the issues, would want him. But the problem, is, as I say, "But, the Republicans...." Well, this is a problem, isn't it? And, that's what a lot of people out there are wrestling about. They say, "Yes, but.... Yes, but.... It ain't that bad. It's bad, but it's not that bad that we have to vote for the Republican." That's the real slogan of the Democratic Party, isn't it, right now?

But, there's a solution for that. You see, if we could induce the Democratic Party leadership and others to dump Obama, what would happen is that the Democrats, and certain kinds of Republicans, would immediately come over and vote on that side. But they would find themselves voting for the Republican candidate. Well, that in itself is not so bad. But I know something about the Republican Party. And I know a number of real horror stories out there that any President, elected to be a Republican President, is going to have a hell of a problem with his constituency. They are going to go to cut your throat. So you'll eat less. Things like that. They've got very bad ideas, some of them. The Presidential candidate's not that kind of a problem.

But, how do we manage the country, if we have a potential victory of a nominally Republican candidate, and the impotence of the Democrats, who haven't got the guts to vote for a sane man? And, the Republican is a sane man. He may have many drawbacks. Many people have drawbacks; they inherit them, or something. But the question is, how can we do two things: have a stable country, a stable government, without some of the things we want to avoid; and also have a stable society, economically? That's our challenge.

A lot of Republicans want to solve all problems by cutting everything" "Starve every one to death except us." Guess who? George Washington saw it. George Washington was dead set against the party system. Now there's a difference between the Constitution of the United States as created initially, and what is done under the party system. The party system came in to destroy the United States. It opened the gates for the destruction of the United States. Because people began to play partisan games.

What Washington's conception was, and mine is, as well: "Get rid of this party system!" We should elect directly, elect a government, but the government itself. And then let people have party organizations outside the actual voting process, which is what Washington wanted to do. Because what happens when you get this voting process, you have compromises based on partisanship. And these compromises result in the lack of measures and votes and programs which are essential for the existence of the nation.

For example, the general performance of the party system since 1971, has been to make everything worse. And how is it made worse? By compromise, on the principle of compromise. We can trade off everything. We no longer operate on the basis of principle.

Start with Glass-Steagall

What I've made clear in this election campaign, is that there are three things which have to be done now, simply to save the United States, to keep it from crumbling. One thing: we have to actually have a Glass-Steagall law. And that's a law for Republicans and Democrats, because if we don't get Glass-Steagall, even we don't have thermonuclear World War III, the economy is going to disintegrate. What we have now going is hyperinflation, which makes 1923 German hyperinflation a simple joke. The worst hyperinflation in the world is now generating its odors in Europe and in the United States and elsewhere. We don't have a chance, as long as we continue with the economy—unless we change the policy. So we cannot have this kind of thing any more. We have to have a Glass-Steagall law. People in Europe, the people in England, leading people, say "No, we need Glass-Steagall. You cannot survive without Glass-Steagall." And everybody has to vote for it, because it's an affirmation of morality by doing so.

There's another thing we require: Suppose we do this Glass-Steagall. What's going to be our situation? Our situation is going to be, "We're in real deep kimchee." Because, we are not going to have left over, after all this worthless crap has been taken off the books of the Federal government, we're not going to have much left with which to support the growth of the U.S. economy.

There's a solution! And it's a solution which was founded with the United States. It's a solution which goes back as far as the 1660s. You know the solution? The Massachusetts [Bay Colony] economy, the Massachusetts system. So you have a system, which is of that type. What you need is more money. We've done this before in the United States.

Lincoln did it when it came to the Civil War. It's been done otherwise. You simply have to have the Federal government utter credit, but make sure where the credit goes. We've got people who are starving on the streets. Twenty-seven million people, working age, starving on the streets, or elsewhere. What are we going to do? We're going to employ them, aren't we? We're going to create the employment for them. We're going to create the opportunities to rebuild the economy. Our banking system will not have real money to support that. Aahh! We'll go back to what we started with: a credit system. Restore the American credit system! That's how Lincoln got us through the mess in the Civil War—the credit system.

The point is, that you've got to make sure that what you create credit for, is redeemable. And that's what we have to do. We put through Glass-Steagall. That eliminates a lot of junk, but it doesn't give you enough capital inserted into the system, to cause the kind of growth to deal with this problem, like 27 million Americans, who are eligible for employment don't have it! They're starving! So we need 27 million jobs, and we need 'em fast. We can do that.

For example, we have a project, called NAWAPA, which was actually designed to be put into effect in the middle of the 1960s. That project, of developing water systems, would increase the amount of water available to the United States, by about 1.7 times!

We also have, in the whole area of the northern tier, going from Missouri and so forth back, you have the former auto industry and related industry, in which you have people who still, though partly in retirement, still reflect those kinds of skills, in their family skills and traditions.

We don't have the kind of employment, needed to create the kind of products which are needed by the nation! So, by going to a credit system, which is a traditional one for the United States, in even earlier periods, by going to a credit system, rather than a loose system, we can go to the banks, the legitimate banks, which are Glass-Steagall banks, we can go to them as the Federal government, and we can propose that they present, together with the government itself, programs on which we have the estimates. If the project is worthwhile, we'll invest in it!

So the Federal government can be the supply of credit for the creation of employment, also, for the increase of the amount of water! We have a crucial water shortage, now, in many parts of the United States, and we need to correct that.

So, how do we make this work? Well, if you don't think in terms of partisan systems, if you think in terms of the American System, patriotic system, in that case, the problem is not great. Because if people can come together on the basis of providing the economic remedies that are so urgently needed in this nation, as in others, now, if we can meet that need, we can rebuild this nation, its structure, and its moral outlook.

Cancel Bernanke!

Now, to go into the details would take more time than this occasion fits, except as questions may come up on this subject. But there is a remedy, an immediate remedy, which could be taken, if the leadership of the United States decides to do it, and it can be done, now! We can cancel Bernanke! He can go ease himself someplace else!

What we need to do is have a Glass-Steagall system, operate tightly on a Glass-Steagall system, and understand that in order to save the U.S. economy and its people, we've got to put in a kind of system, a credit system, of the appropriate type.

With that, we can pick out a number of very large projects, potentially, to put people back to work, at real jobs, not make-work jobs, but real jobs, career jobs, for people who are not only going to work, but they're going to increase their capabilities, they're going to increase their income, they're going to increase the life opportunities for their children. In the way we did it before, the way that Franklin Roosevelt took the United States out of the Depression, the way it should have continued if Truman hadn't spoiled it. What Jack Kennedy did, and was doing, was right! We can do that again! We can do what other people in leadership have wanted to do. Do it that way.

So therefore, what's the problem? How are we going to solve this? In principle we've got to get rid of this hard partisanship, of the party system. We have to get a system which is based on a credit system, Glass-Steagall, and not paring this off, and chewing this off, and cutting this off, and so forth, and adding this; we've got to have a program for recovery of the nation. Because there's no patchwork deals, deal on deal, no more kiss your buddy's butt kind of things in the Congress. No more of that.

Go back to a determination of what this nation needs, to meet the needs, first of all, of its people! To solve that 27 million jobs deficit, of people who have nothing; to solve the problem of the farmers who are going out of existence who were producing the food, but they're not producing any more, because they're not allowed to. And we can set up systems where we can build.

Do you realize what we have? Opportunities? We are going into the Arctic! We're going in there! That's one of the things we can do! It's very important to do it, as I've explained on other occasions. But what we need to do, is get the sense that George Washington had: Don't play with the idea of the party system as checks and balances! Get rid of that thing, that piece of nonsense! That disease! Elect a Presidency! Constitute a Presidency! And then bring the party people from outside of the Presidential process, but bring them into the process as the influence of the people, on what the policies are.

But the leadership, the initiative, should not come from the way it's being done now; it should be done on the basis of the needs and opportunities of the United States, and similarly, other nations. We can start that immediately! We can start that as soon as we get Obama out of there.

Now, of course, he might be still lingering, technically, around, before they finally throw him out, finally, out the kitchen door, or something; but we can fix that, too. First of all, we can make sure he doesn't get elected. And that's not too hard to do, if you come up with the right kind of policy, and take the right effort.

This nation is going to die, unless we get rid of Obama. And Obama wants to kill us, whether he understands it or not.

Remember What We Were

So therefore, we, as the people of the United States, must, as George Washington envisaged, return to the devotion to our principle, the principle for which we worked so hard. Remember what we were: We in the United States had created a new nation, a nation which was able, or capable, implicitly, to cure the problem of Europe, in particular; to cure the injustice, the slavery in Africa; to cure the injustice in South and Central America; to bring the world up to a higher level: That was our mission. And in part, in our good times, we did exactly that! We did good things, as Jack Kennedy did very good things, thus exemplifying what the United States means when it's operating under the intent which was its Constitution.

And once you get the dissident Democrats who don't want to vote for Obama, and who are off on a vacation from politics, for the period of the election—bring them back in; and you can bring them back in if you come back this way: Give the Democrats, the good ones, give them the option of doing something good for their country, which is what they would like to do. That's why they don't want to vote for this President, because they know he's not fit to be voted for. They don't want to vote for the Republican, and they damned well don't want to vote for this bum. If we can bring the independents and the Democrats into the same fold on this issue, with the decent Republicans, that's all it takes.

But it means, then, not this usual bargaining nonsense that goes on in the Congress; what is needed is a program, a program of recovery for not only the United States, but for our cooperation with other parts of the world. That's what we must do! And stop all this nonsense.